Verner Eerola1, Ilkka Helanterä1, Anna But2, Marko Lempinen1, Heikki Mäkisalo1, Arno Nordin1, Helena Isoniemi1, Ville Sallinen3. 1. Department of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 2. Biostatistics Consulting, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 3. Department of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland ville.sallinen@helsinki.fi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transplant centers in Europe aim to minimize the time from brain death to organ procurement (procurement delay), but evidence to justify this is scarce. In the United States, procurement times are significantly longer. Our objective was to analyze how procurement delay associates with kidney allograft outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Kidney transplantations from brain-dead donors were retrospectively analyzed from the Finnish Kidney Transplant Registry and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in the United States. Multivariable models were adjusted with donor and recipient characteristics, and the relationship between procurement delay and outcomes was modeled with cubic spline functions. RESULTS: In total, 2388 and 101,474 kidney transplantations in Finland and the United States were included, respectively. The median procurement delay was 9.8 hours (interquartile range, 7.8-12.4) in Finland and 34.8 hours (interquartile range, 26.3-46.3) in the United States. A nonlinear association was observed between procurement delay and the risk of delayed graft function, with highest risk seen in short and very long procurement delays. In multivariable models, the lowest risk of delayed graft function was associated with procurement delay between 20 and 50 hours. In multivariable models, longer procurement delay was linearly associated with lower risk of graft loss (hazard ratio, 0.90/1 h longer; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.92; P<0.001). Acute rejection rates, for which data were only available from Finland, were not associated with procurement delay. CONCLUSIONS: Longer procurement delay was associated with noninferior or even better kidney allograft outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transplant centers in Europe aim to minimize the time from brain death to organ procurement (procurement delay), but evidence to justify this is scarce. In the United States, procurement times are significantly longer. Our objective was to analyze how procurement delay associates with kidney allograft outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Kidney transplantations from brain-dead donors were retrospectively analyzed from the Finnish Kidney Transplant Registry and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in the United States. Multivariable models were adjusted with donor and recipient characteristics, and the relationship between procurement delay and outcomes was modeled with cubic spline functions. RESULTS: In total, 2388 and 101,474 kidney transplantations in Finland and the United States were included, respectively. The median procurement delay was 9.8 hours (interquartile range, 7.8-12.4) in Finland and 34.8 hours (interquartile range, 26.3-46.3) in the United States. A nonlinear association was observed between procurement delay and the risk of delayed graft function, with highest risk seen in short and very long procurement delays. In multivariable models, the lowest risk of delayed graft function was associated with procurement delay between 20 and 50 hours. In multivariable models, longer procurement delay was linearly associated with lower risk of graft loss (hazard ratio, 0.90/1 h longer; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.92; P<0.001). Acute rejection rates, for which data were only available from Finland, were not associated with procurement delay. CONCLUSIONS: Longer procurement delay was associated with noninferior or even better kidney allograft outcomes.
Authors: N A Muruve; T S Helling; A M Luger; J Martinez; P W Nelson; G E Pierce; G Ross; C F Shield; B A Warady; M I Aeder; C F Bryan Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Kenji Inaba; Bernardino C Branco; Lydia Lam; Ali Salim; Peep Talving; David Plurad; Donald J Green; Demetrios Demetriades Journal: J Trauma Date: 2010-06
Authors: Tanja C Saat; Denis Susa; Henk P Roest; Niels F M Kok; Sandra van den Engel; Jan N M Ijzermans; Ron W F de Bruin Journal: Transplantation Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: T A Schuurs; A M Morariu; P J Ottens; N A 't Hart; S H Popma; H G D Leuvenink; R J Ploeg Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Oliver K Jawitz; Vignesh Raman; Yaron Barac; Michael S Mulvihill; Carrie Moore; Ashley Y Choi; Matthew Hartwig; Jacob Klapper Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Simon Ville; Marine Lorent; Clarisse Kerleau; Anders Asberg; Christophe Legendre; Emmanuel Morelon; Fanny Buron; Valérie Garrigue; Moglie Le Quintrec; Sophie Girerd; Marc Ladrière; Laetitia Albano; Antoine Sicard; Denis Glotz; Carmen Lefaucheur; Julien Branchereau; David Jacobi; Magali Giral Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Verner Eerola; Ilkka Helanterä; Fredrik Åberg; Marko Lempinen; Heikki Mäkisalo; Arno Nordin; Helena Isoniemi; Ville Sallinen Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 3.842